Few figures that emerged from Silicon Valley have blended wealth, ideology and political power like Peter Thiel. He is a co-founder of Paypal and Palantir Technologies and was an early investor in Facebook. Thiel represents the U.S  merging of private wealth, government access, and technological surveillance. He blurs the line between public authority and private ambition, presenting himself as a visionary for technological progress and national security.  However, the growing reach of his company Palantir into police departments and government agencies is much more grim. This power allows one man’s ideology to shape how millions are watched, categorized, and controlled. Thiel’s concentration of influence, wealth and information is a threat to democracy itself.

Palantir Technologies, Thiel’s most powerful creation, is the tool through which this influence becomes material. Founded in 2003 with funding from the CIA’s venture capital arm, Palantir was designed as a counterterrorism tool after 9/11. Its software compiles vast amounts of data like financial records, social media posts, license plate scans, criminal databases, and uses it to find “connections” among people and activities. What began as a weapon for the intelligence community soon entered domestic policing. Palantir now contracts with police departments in major cities, integrating surveillance footage, arrest records, and private data into predictive policing systems. These programs claim to make policing more efficient, but in practice, they often amplify racial bias, target marginalized communities, and allow for constant monitoring of citizens who have committed no crime (Rummage, 2025).

This domestic expansion coincides with Palantir’s deepening role in federal governance (Rashid, 2025). The Trump administration is using Palantir to help build a centralized federal database that would merge information across multiple government agencies and departments. The project would grant Palantir sweeping access to government records and position the company at the core of U.S. information gathering. Such a system, placed in the hand of a firm owned by Thiel, threatens to remake civic life through data acquisition and architecture. A tool designed by a billionaire with open disdain for democracy is on its way to become the backbone of America (Theil, 2009). Even within Palanir, the implications of this technology have sparked concern (Hartung, 2025). Former employees publicly condemned the company’s work with the Trump administration, warning that Palantir’s systems could be used to violate civil liberties. Worker dissent reveals that those closest to the technology understand how easy analytical tools can be used for state control. Their warnings make it clear that the danger is not hypothetical but built into the software’s design.

Thiel’s political rise shows how money and ideology can bend democratic institutions toward private interests. As one of the few Silicon Valley figures to endorse Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, Thiel secured direct access to the White House, serving on the president’s transition team and helping recommend key appointments in technology and defense (Romm, 2016). His connections extended beyond Trump, as Thiel funded and mentored politicians like J.D. Vance, later rising to national prominence with Thiel’s backing. These relationships were not built out of civic duty but were calculated investments. By financing leaders who share his worldview, Thiel ensured that government power would be sympathetic to his business goals and his belief in data driven control. 

Thiel has long expressed open skepticism toward democracy, writing that freedom and progress are often at odds with democratic decision making. To Thiel, the unpredictability of collective politics is a weakness, not a strength.  His vision of the future favors efficient, data driven systems where algorithms guide society more effectively than elected officials or public debate. This ideology, when paired with his technological empire and political connections, gives Thiel something uniquely dangerous: the ability to turn his personal philosophy into public policy without the consent of the governed (Cato, 2009).

Since its creation in 2003, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been known for being one of the most controversial government agencies in the nation. Although it was originally established to maintain the United States' national security and enforce laws against illegal immigrants, they have taken a turn to wrongful treatment against innocent immigrants and harsh tactics. They’ve been getting a lot of criticism recently, considering the actions inflicted on innocent immigrants as well.  

Since its inception, ICE has played a centered role in interior immigration enforcement. Yet, evidence shows that many of those affected by its work are not violent or dangerous criminals, and the consequences ripple far beyond the individuals detained. Newly found data shows that as of September 2025, about 71.5% of those held in detainment had no criminal record (Trac Reports). Another study found that 65% of people booked by ICE didn’t have a conviction,

and over 93% didn’t have any sort of conviction for any violent offense (Cato Institute). 

Between 2013 and 2018, over 231,000 people reported having at least one U.S. citizen child deported by ICE (U.S. Citizen Children Impacted by Immigration Enforcement). These actions not only separate parents from their children, but can also be a potential destabilization of households. One analysis found that when an undocumented family member is removed, household income can drop significantly to a standing 45% (American Immigration Council). 

More recent data shown tells us that in fiscal year 2024, ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) logged about 149,070 arrests across the United States, of which the vast majority (76.1%) were classified arrests (USAFacts).  The controversy that surrounds I.C.E. goes even further beyond statistics — it has become a major point of debate between political parties. Supporters of empowering immigration enforcement, often from conservative circles, give an argument that ICE is a necessary agency that gives protection to national security and prevents crimes committed by undocumented immigrants. President Donald Trump once stated,  “Without ICE, you wouldn't have a country,” reinforcing the belief that strict enforcement is the key to maintaining law and order (NBC News). 

On the other hand, large numbers of progressive and Democratic leaders have called for the reform, or even abolition of ICE. They cite human rights abuses and unfair targeting of non - criminal immigrants. Representative Alaxendria Ocasio- Cortez, for instance, gave a statement that ICE has “systematically violated human rights and operated outside the law,” calling for major changes to immigration enforcement policies (CNN Politics). These contrasting views have made ICE a symbol of the broader immigration debate in the U.S. between national security and human rights justice. 

The Toll against innocent immigrants:

Behind politics, there are real people. Families are constantly faced with separation and long distance detentions when the individuals have no violent record. According to the American Immigration Council, children often suffer emotional trauma and economic instability after the deportation of a parent. In interviews, family members have described losing their primary source of overnight income and living in the fear of being detained themselves. 

An affected mother told The Guardian, “They took my husband early in the morning while our kids were still asleep. We didn’t even know where he was for two weeks.” Related stories like this are not rare and show how ICE’s broad enforcement policies can deeply affect an entire household, rather than just the individual. 

Even further beyond some arrests, the conditions of detention have drawn criticism at a national stand point. Reports that come from watchdog groups, two of many being Human Rights Watch and The Washington Post own detailed overcrowded cells, limited medical care access, and poor living standards. In 2023, multiple ICE facilities faced many lawsuits after detainees were allegedly denied access to proper healthcare and were placed in highly unsanitary conditions. These scouts and reports intensified public concern that the agency prioritizes their own numbers over proper treatment to the detainees.  

An attorney that comes from the Immigrant Justice Network commented, “ICE’s facilities operate under secrecy and minimal oversight. When transparency is lacking, abuse thrives.” This sudden burst of awareness has led to nationwide protests demanding reforms to how ICE handles their own detainment. 

Immigration reform advocates are constantly pushing for new policies that would limit the reach of ICE, holding them more accountable and keeping detainment facilities more safe. Proposals all include prioritizing the deportation of individuals with violent criminal records, expanding community like alternatives to detention, and providing legal representation to detainees.  At the same given time, policymakers give the argument for balancement of enforcement with compassion. For example, the Biden administration has made  an attempt to possibly redirect ICE’s focus to “threats to public safety” other than broad raids, though critics argue that enforcement numbers remain too high (USAFacts). The given tension between these different approaches still continues to shape the national conversation about immigration in 2025. 

ICE, originally being made to protect the United States and its people, now has shaped into something entirely different, using a variety of harsh methods that raised serious ethical concerns. With over 70% of detainees being viewed, and shown not having a criminal record or conviction, it’s clear that innocent and low risk immigrants often bear the brunt of the agency’s operations. Until greater oversights and reforms are implemented, the question will forever still remain — How can America balance nation security with fairness and compassion for those who seek a better life?

  Works Cited

“U.S. Citizen Children Impacted by Immigration Enforcement.” 

American Immigration Council, https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/fact-sheet/us-citizen-children-impacted-immigration-enforcement/.  Accessed 19 Nov. 2025.

“Newly found data shows that as of September 2025, about 71.5% of those held in detainment had no criminal record” 

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ice-detainee-data-fastest-growing-without-criminal-records-trump/ 

“Another study found that 65% of people booked by ICE didn’t have a conviction,

and over 93% didn’t have any sort of conviction for any violent offense (Cato Institute)”. 

https://www.cato.org/blog/65-people-taken-ice-had-no-convictions-93-no-violent-convictions 

The Martyring of Charlie Kirk

On September 10th, 2025, at 12:23PM, Charlie Kirk, American right-wing activist, was shot in the side of the neck by someone later identified as Tyler Robinson, while giving a speech at Utah Valley University (UVU). The first stop in the fall 2025 season of the “American Comeback Tour,” a debate series planned by Turning Point USA, a conservative youth organisation that Kirk co-founded.

During these debates (which  started around the time of Turning Point USA’s foundation in 2012), Kirk would set up an informal debate at a college campus, often using his signature “Prove me wrong” table. There, students would come up to a microphone and debate Kirk over issues like abortion, racial issues, issues in the LGBTQ+ community, and more. 

A Christian Nationalist and keen ally of President Donald J. Trump, Kirk's views often proved conservative, including opposition to abortion, gun rights, and criticism of the LGBTQ community. Some of his more controversial views included spreading misinformation of COVID-19, the 2020 election, as well as his criticism of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Carter Sr).                                                      

11 days after Kirk’s assasination, in Glendale, Arizona, a memorial service was held in his honor, and attended by over 90,000 people. Many have criticized the “funeral” for its theatrics and blatant advertisement of the Republican Party. During the funeral, merchandise using Kirk's likeness, and MAGA merchandise, including the signature red hat were sold. Many of the funeral-goers wore shirts with the phrase “I am Charlie Kirk”.

The memorial, often described as an evangelical revival (which makes sense regarding Kirk's religious background), included contemporary Christian music, worship, as well as multiple guest speakers, including Erika Kirk, JD Vance, Stephen Miller (White House Deputy Chief of Staff), with Donald Trump scheduled to speak last. These speeches were met with fireworks, American flags, and MAGA advertisements across the stage. Many of the speeches, including the President’s, described Kirk as a “Martyr for the Christian Faith.” During her speech, Erika Kirk forgave Tyler Robinson for the death of her husband, stating, “That man, that young man – I forgive him. I forgive him because it was what Christ did, and it is what Charlie would do” (Hutzler). In the coming days after his “festive” funeral, Congressman Abraham Hamedah as well as August Pfluger of the Republican Study Committee introduced a bill which, if approved, directs the U.S Treasury to mint 400,000 silver dollar coins with the likeness of Charlie Kirk, and the phrase “Well done, good and faithful servant” underneath (Hamedah).

The Politicization of Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination, the question “Does America have a political violence problem?” has become a prevalent part of the conversation. But to answer that question, we must first understand that after such a highly publicized political assassination, such as Kirk's, many acts of violence that might previously have been dismissed as “criminal” or “isolated” tend to be reinterpreted through a political lens.

In the graph shown at the end of this article, we can see that the increase of political violence in this country has had a sharp incline in recent years, long before the assassination occurred. In fact, it would be easy to see why one might assume that Kirk’s assassination is more of a culmination of this recent trend rather than a spark, igniting a new wave of violence.

That is not to say that Kirk’s Assassination did not stoke the pre-existing state of political violence. This, unfortunately, could be seen in New Jersey, Oct 3, 5:30 pm, where two innocent young women’s lives were taken, for doing nothing more than allegedly invoking their 1st amendment rights.

Allegedly, on Oct 3, 17 year old Vincent Battiloro struck Maria Niotis and Isabella Salas with his vehicle (SUV) while going over 70mph in a 25mph zone. The incident has since been cited by commentators across the political spectrum as evidence of how blurred the line between ideological hatred and spontaneous violence has become in the post-Kirk era.

Whatever his motivations may have been, Vincent Battiloro, for a fact, had been plotting on Maria and her family for the months leading up to the tragic event. In a statement with Fox News Maria’s family was quoted saying, “murder in the first degree” and that “he’d been plotting the attack for months, carried out this horrific attack, taking not only her life but also Isabella’s.” These claims were backed by Vincent himself, who frequently enjoyed creating and live-streaming content to his nearly 40,000 followers across platforms. Recently a clip resurfaced from weeks before the incident, where Vincent prank calls and orders 2 large pizzas to Maria’s home, one of the chat members chilling response further seems to incriminate Vincent, “Are you gonna drive to Maria's house to watch the pizza be delivered?” to which Vincent responded “I did that the last time, but the mother saw me pull up in the car, and I got tracked, and you know? The police did what they did.” Later that livestream, Vincent was also quoted saying, “Whenever Maria sees the pizza guy come, better think of Charlie Kirk, for making fun of his F**** death,--- stupid F**** clown.”

The death of Charlie Kirk has divided America. Since his death, Kirk’s reputation in the Republican Party has evolved from political speaker to Martyr for the Christian Faith and conservative values. Many of Kirk’s supporters have compared him to other martyrs, such as Martin Luther King Jr. or John F. Kennedy (Layne). Kirk's assassination has forced Americans to confront how deeply politics now shapes our perception of tragedy. Events once viewed as personal or isolated are increasingly seen through partisan filters, turning grief into ammunition for debate. This cultural shift reveals not only the rise of political extremism but also a growing inability to separate humanity from ideology, a dangerous mindset that ensures every act of violence becomes another battle in a never-ending political war.